You could conceivably reuse the 'introduction' rtf in the technical spec (master document) for example, but say the 'cover page' rtf would be different as would have different title etc.

What else to say? If your method works then I would suggest you use it. I'm not suggesting my approach is better. I can tell you that it works and that I have successfully imported word documents - and it works. There are lots of lets say 'idiosyncrasies' about the import (won't use the word bugs) but with trial and error it does work. It is tricky though, I will say that. :-?

Good point skiwi it is tricky. Now that I think about it I probably wouldn't have figured it out had it not been for http://www.catchlimited.com/ teaching me on a training session I attended on this subject.

Here is some info I posted on linkedin in the EA group on this topic

I disagee that you cant create a nice word document from EA. Granted It is hard, but it is definitely possible.

The trick is this:1) Create a new rtf template in EA with the required fields> You will need a new rtf teamplate for each different section in your final document.2) Export the rtf3) Open the rtf in office 2k7 and apply the formatting - be careful not to change the field tag naming or the order of the fieldsTIP: Use tables for your EA info!4) Go back to EA and open the rft5) Select import and import the rtf that you updated using word 2k76) Save7) Repeat 1-6 for each section. e.g. you may need the following templates, each being a separate rtf: a cover page; introduction; verision history; process; requirements; signoff Create a master document* and attach the relevant packages and templates9) Generate the master document* I'm assuming you know how to set up a master and model documents...

Does anyone have any suggestions on nicely presenting html exports of the EA model into SharePoint?

I have found that if you set the save location for the html report as a SharePoint library you get millions of files as part of the html packages and it messes up all your 'relevant documents' and 'my site' etc.

Also, it would be nice if there was a web part that could be pointed at the resulting html model to render the model or the diagrams. So far I have used:1) Page Viewer Web Part (iFrame) to display the My Computer location of the html files so that you can open the EA html model from SharePoint. For this I use 'display folders' and point at the filepath of the parent folder.2) The diagram images seem to assume a different <filename>.png each time you refresh the export of the html. This means that if you are pointing a Content Editor Web Part at a static filepath to the .png of a diagram it won't get updated when you refresh the html generation. Why is this?3) Is there a better stylesheet that anyone could share that works better or looks more 'SharePoint'?

For documenting rules I use the requirement element. I create a diagram and then add a package called requirements and another package called rules.

When you add a rule add the requirement element to the diagram and then move it in the browser into the rules package. In this way the diagram will identify the element as being 'from rules package' or 'from requirements package' and the move external function is the same for a rule as a requirement.

The last thing you can do is add a new Type of 'Rule' so when you add a rule you can set the type to 'rule' instead of 'functional'. To set this up go to:Settings > General Types. Requirement tab. Add a new item called 'Rule'.

Hope this helps, it worked for me...

Quote

I've only been working in EA for about a month so please excuse my newbie query about business rules. I am principally using EA to capture requirements, Use Cases and workflow (modeled so far as Activity work flow and a UI model). I know that there is a technique that can be used to "externalize" (Move External) requirements that may be documented while fleshing out the properties of a Use Case.

Is there a similar technique that can be used to 'externalize' the business rules (constraints) of a requirement via the 'Rules and Scenarios' dialogue? The reason I ask is because the 'Rules and Scenarios' are somewhat 'hidden' in the overall model. It's also not very apparent/intuitive as to how a (new) user would view this dialog for a given requirement element (ctrl+shift+3 - as opposed to dbl-click).

How would a tester or developer use an EA model to find / list all Business Rules in a given model (that have been created using the 'Rules and Scenarios' dialogue?

Thanks for your note, interesting stuff. I see your approach and it sounds robust. The model we are working with has about 12 'mega-processes' which each need their own set of lanes and pools. For a smaller model I will take your approach, and I def take your advice on board, but what I think we will do is:

Set up an actor for each in a distinct list of lanes and pools. Link each lane and pool into a stereotype of the corresponding actor name.Then map the actors on a diagram to represent the organisation hierarchy.We will be able to monitor ongoing to make sure that each lane/pool has a relevant stereotype linked and that the stereotype, actor and lane/pool all have the same name.

That script sounds useful! Is it SQL or some sort of application code?

Here is my final SQL script just in case anyone else might find it helpful:

SELECT t1.ea_guid AS CLASSGUID, t1.Object_Type AS CLASSTYPE,t1.Name as Object, t2.Name as Classifier,t1.object_type as Type,t1.stereotype as StereoType,t1.scope as Scope,t1.status as Status,t1.version as Version,t1.createddate as Created,t1.modifieddate as Modified,t1.author as AuthorFROM t_object t1 left outer join t_object t2 on t1.Classifier = t2.Object_ID where t1.stereotype in ("Pool","Lane")

The RTF orders elements according to the order in the project browser right. If you have a pool with activites within the activities sit in under the pool in the tree, and then in the rtf report all come out in order correctly.

When you add a second process diagram in a different area in the tree, if you reuse the pool then it starts to all go wrong. As you add activities into the second diagram the activities are added to the tree but you can't see the pool in the tree under the second diagram. The pool will not be included in the rtf report for the second diagram as it is not in that are of the tree.

With the main goal being able to generate document of the process for communication and signoff, would duplication then be required to make sure the documents are correct?

I have been using the BPMN tools for my activity/process diagrams so am interesting in linking the lanes/pools into the org hierarchy.

The model I have is very big, has multiple instances of the same lane or pool so as to allow for the elements to be ordered correctly in the project browser and hence come out in the right order in the reports.

So I think the best thing to do is to follow the classifier suggestion and firstly create a diagram with actors linked to represent the org hierarchy. I can then link each lane or pool so that the classifier is the relevant actor.

If a process model has been defined with many standard lanes and pools, it is required to document/produce a diagram which displays the relationships between those pools and lanes. This would appear as an organisation hierarchy.

Is there a way that the lanes and pools can be dragged onto a diagram type that would allow the lanes and pools to be linked like an ERD or class diagram format? Or could an ERD be made and the lanes and pools linked into the ERD elements in the same way that requirements can be linked into activies in a process diagram?

The purpose would be to show the context in the organisation that each lane and pool fits in to.

Alternatively is there an option to do the same thing using the actor element? This could also work as a solution although not all the lanes and pools are yet defined as actors so it wouldn't immediately be as easy to produce.